Ypon v Ricaforte (Succession)

Ypon v Ricaforte
GR No. 198680, July 8, 2013
HEIRS OF MAGDALENO YPON, NAMELY, ALVARO YPON, ERUDITA Y. BARON, CICERO YPON,
WILSON YPON, VICTOR YPON, AND HINIDINO Y. PEALOSA, PETITIONERS, vs.
GAUDIOSO PONTERAS RICAFORTE A.K.A. "GAUDIOSO E. YPON," AND THE REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF TOLEDO CITY, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS:
On July 29, 2010, the Ypons filed a complaint for Cancellation of Title and Reconveyance with
Damages (subject complaint) against respondent Gaudioso Ponteras Ricaforte. In their
complaint, they alleged that Magdaleno Ypon (Magdaleno) died intestate and childless on
June 28, 1968
Claiming to be the sole heir of Magdaleno, Gaudioso executed an Affidavit of SelfAdjudication and caused the cancellation of the aforementioned certificates of title, leading
to their subsequent transfer in his name
In his Answer, Gaudioso alleged that he is the lawful son of Magdaleno as evidenced by: (a)
his certificate of Live Birth; (b) two (2) letters from Polytechnic School; and (c) a certified
true copy of his passport. Further, by way of affirmative defense, he claimed that: (a)
petitioners have no cause of action against him; (b) the complaint fails to state a cause of
action; and (c) the case is not prosecuted by the real parties-in-interest, as there is no
showing that the petitioners have been judicially declared as Magdalenos lawful heirs.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) RTC-Toledo: dismissed the case for lack of cause of action.
The Court also denied their motion for reconsideration due to the counsels failure to state
the date on which his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Certificate of Compliance was
issued.
Direct to the Supreme Court (pure questions of law)
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTCs dismissal of the case on the ground that the subject complaint
failed to state a cause of action was proper
RULING:
Yes, it was proper.
General Rule
The rule is that the determination of a decedents lawful heirs should be made in the
corresponding special proceeding precludes the RTC, in an ordinary action for cancellation of
title and reconveyance, from granting the same. In the case of Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan v.
CA, the Court, citing several other precedents, held that the determination of who are the
decedents lawful heirs must be made in the proper special proceeding for such purpose,
and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and/or possession, as in this case.
The trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that
such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding.
Exception
By way of exception, the need to institute a separate special proceeding for the
determination of heirship may be dispensed with for the sake of practicality, as when the

parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court and already
presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship, and the RTC had consequently
rendered judgment thereon, or when a special proceeding had been instituted but had been
finally closed and terminated, and hence, cannot be re-opened.
In this case, none of the foregoing exceptions, or those of similar nature, appear to exist.